Letters to the Editor: Week of July 23-29, 2017

When is “selective enforcement” of city ordinances appropriate? Is it more or less appropriate when those involved are city employees — 9 police officers, 14 firemen, 8 public works and 2 waste water treatment plant employees? As stewards of the “public trust,” do city officials and employees have a “moral responsibility” to act in a fair and unbiased manner (i.e. complying with city ordinances in the time frame established by the ordinance and applying the provisions of the ordinance in a fair and just manner)?

When does the City Council have a “moral responsibility” to penalize a person for an act or event? Does the City Council have a “fiduciary responsibility” to direct the enforcement of city ordinances, regardless of who the individual is or their status in the community? Does that responsibility require the consideration of the potential monetary penalty established by the ordinance?

Is it appropriate to waive a potential cumulative total in excess of $6,000 in fines and fees (as established by the ordinance) because those in violation are city employees?

In Granite City, it is more appropriate to plead with employees for compliance for fear of possible embarrassment than it is to apply the standards established by the ordinance in a fair and just manner. Just ask the mayor or your council member.

John Culiberk

Granite City

There are 16,629 students in the 95th District who depend on me to advocate for them at the state Capitol. Each one of them deserves the chance to receive a world-class education. Their future — that is what this fight for school funding reform is all about.

In the past three years, I have served on three school funding commissions and task forces. I can tell you firsthand — throughout those meetings there has been genuine, groundbreaking, bipartisan work done to produce a new, fair, evidence-based school funding formula.

Unsurprisingly, at the last second, negotiations were cut off, amendments were filed that benefited Chicago and the bill was forced through on a mostly partisan basis. Good bipartisan work was abandoned for partisan politics that send more money to Chicago first.

You’ll hear both sides argue about whether or not there is a Chicago bailout or what that means. Let me share what sending Chicago more money means for my neighbors in the 95th District.

In the 95th, there are 16,629 students in school districts like Taylorville, Pana, Carlinville, Gillespie, North Mac, Hillsboro and Staunton. That equals 0.85 percent of the students throughout the state of Illinois.

Chicago has 367,003 students. That equals 18.74 percent of the students in Illinois.

Under Senate Bill 1, Chicago will receive 63.62 percent of the new money. Meanwhile, students in the 95th District will receive 0.5 percent of the new money.

Once the bailout for Chicago is removed from SB1, Chicago’s students receive 19.06 percent of the new money, while students in the 95th District receive .82 percent of the new money. That is fairness: 19.06 percent of new money for 18.74 percent of the students in Illinois and 0.82 percent of the money for 0.85 percent of the students.

Our students downstate deserve a fair shake. We need a new school funding formula — one that treats every school district the same and one that sends money first to the students and school districts that need it most. SB1, in its current form, is not that solution. With structural manipulations in the base funding minimum (where money goes first), that means millions of dollars are shifted first to Chicago before any new money is disbursed to all other 851 school districts.

After years of education cuts under previous administrations, I cannot blame the schools that are desperate for more money. They need it. We owe it to the students they serve. However, we as downstaters must fight for our fair share. We cannot settle for second fiddle. Lord knows Chicago isn’t settling. Our kids deserve more.

Now the political games continue. Instead of abiding by the process every other legislature uses — sending a bill to the governor once it passes — they’re holding on to it.

To end the political gamesmanship, Gov. (Bruce) Rauner has called us back into special session to get this done. There are two options — work with us in the legislature to come to a bipartisan solution or send the bill to the governor and let him take out the Chicago bailout. Either way, it is immoral to hold the school funding bill and hold our schools hostage until there is a crisis.

No special deals, no hostage-taking. Let’s get this done for every school and every student, now.

State Rep. Avery Bourne (R-Raymond)

Where do you want to eat tonight? “It Don’t Matter.” This is an actual name of a restaurant we came across in Alabama while passing through on vacation. But where do we go tonight? “We Don’t Know” — because we don’t have the Secret Diner to lead the way.

We can’t tell you how much we miss the section on new places to eat scouted out by the Secret Diner. Every week, we and another couple looked forward to reading the answer from last week to see where we would be going out to eat. Sometimes we would guess it ahead of time, and sometimes not, but we got a kick out of the detail they went into to tell us about each place.

We just want to say thank you to the couple who wrote this column for so long and wish them well. We are now trying to make our way in finding new places by venturing out on our own because they have left us with the challenge to find out where we are going to eat tonight!

Cordially,

Your Secret Admirers

P.S. We have added to our quest along with the dining out to find a doughnut that matches up with John’s Donut in Wood River or Baker’s Dozen on Washington in Alton. Since they closed many years ago, doughnuts just haven’t been the same!

EDITOR’S NOTE: As you can see in the links below, the Secret Diner is back! Thank you so much for your readership and your loyalty ... we are so glad you are enjoying our newspaper!